Revalidation for general practitioners: randomised comparison of two revalidation models

Abstract

Objective: To compare two models of revalidation for general practitioners.

Design: Randomised comparison of two revalidation models.

Setting: Primary care in Tayside, Scotland.

Participants: 66 Tayside general practitioners (principals and non-principals), 53 of whom completed the revalidation folders. Interventions Two revalidation models: a minimum criterion based model with revalidation as the primary purpose, and an educational outcome model with emphasis on combining revalidation with continuing professional development.

Main outcome measures: Feasibility and acceptability of each approach and effect on the doctor's continuing professional development. The ability to make a summative judgment on completed models and whether either model would allow patient groups to have confidence in the revalidation process.

Results: The criterion model was preferred by general practitioners. For both models doctors reported making changes to their practice and felt a positive effect on their continuing professional development. Summative assessment of the folders showed reasonable inter-rater reliability.

Conclusions: The criterion model provides a practical and acceptable model for general practitioners to use when preparing for revalidation.